The Voter
A Publication of the League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County
N ovember 2015
Vol. 57, No. 4
Amending the United States Constitution
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V:
“The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several
states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all
interests and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths
of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or two other mode of
ratifications may be proposed by the Congress.”
This year, Leagues across the United States are
participating in two League of Women Voters
of the United States (LWVUS) national studies
under the general topic, “Structures of Democracy.” The two studies were adopted at the LWVUS convention in 2014. The first, an update to
the League’s campaign finance positions, “Money in Politics,” was addressed in last month’s
edition of the Voter, as well as at the forum and
at unit meetings. The second is a study of the
process of amending the Consititution. This will
be the topic of our November 5th forum and the
November unit meetings.
Neither the LWVUS nor our local League have
positions in regard to amending the US Constitution. The process to amend is defined in Article V of the US Constitution. Through this study
and consensus reports from Leagues across the
country, the LWVUS intends to develop guidelines for how the League should evaluate the
risks and necessities of constitutional amendment proposals, develop guidelines for considering Article V constitutional conventions, as
well as the process of moving an amendment
from state legislatures on to require Congress
to address the issue. LWVUS has stated that
we need a definitive position about using the
amendment process before the League can eval-
uate its response to particular social, cultural
and political realities of the present and the future while balancing our process and other positions.
Why this study now? The issue of amending the
Constitution to mandate certain views on controversial issues has arisen frequently in recent
years. Since the 1970s, at least 11,000 amendments have been proposed – although since
1787, only 27 in total have been adopted and enacted. Some of the recent issues raised as possible constitutional amendments include balanced budgets, reproductive rights, marriage,
and campaign financing. Many groups of citizens have advocated amending the Constitution
in reaction to the US Supreme Court decision
in Citizens United that overruled most campaign finance regulation of the 20th Century.
Those efforts served as a catalyst for this study.
As members of the League, we are committed to
being informed voters – and to informing other
voters. We need to understand what amending
the US Constitution would mean to our 239
year-old representative democracy.
The LWVUS has provided much material for
this study via its website at forum.lwv.org. The
Program Committee has reviewed these nationContinued on page 6
The League of Women Voters of Seattle–King County, 1620 18th Avenue, Suite 101, Seattle, WA 98122, phone: 206-329-4848
2
The Voter November 2015
Contents
President’s Message..........................................3
Calendar..............................................................4
Forum Schedule.................................................5
Board Briefs........................................................5
Committees........................................................7
King County Connects
Eastside Holiday Party...............................8
Great Decisions..........................................8
Updates from State and National LWV
Olympia and Our Washington.................9
National News............................................9
Action................................................................10
Voter Service....................................................11
Membership News..........................................12
Features
Transportation Committee Report.....15
Book Review.............................................16
Program
Constitutional Amendment Study.......17
Unit Meetings...................................................33
Board and Committee Contacts.................35
Contact Information
President: Amanda Clark
The Voter Editor: Katie Dudley
League of Women Voters
of Seattle-King County
1620 18th Avenue, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98122
Phone: 206-329-4848
[email protected]
www.seattlelwv.org
Office Hours:
Weekdays, 9:30 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
League of Women Voters of Washington
1402 Third Avenue, Suite 430
Seattle, WA 98101
206-622-8961
[email protected]
www.lwvwa.org
League of Women Voters of the United States
202-429-1965
[email protected]
www.lwv.org
Postal Regulations
The Voter is published monthly
except June and August by the League of
Women Voters of Seattle - King County,
1620 18th Ave, #101, Seattle, WA 98122.
Periodicals postage paid at
Seattle, WA.
Postmaster:
Send address changes to The Voter:
1620 18th Ave, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98122
The Voter (ISSN 0888-8841)
3
Leadership
The Voter November 2015
Connecting with the Leadership
We usually think of January as a blank slate and
the time for looking forward, but lately, I’ve been
thinking that November, with Election Day, can
also be a time for new beginnings, whether for
good or bad.
A new Seattle City Council will be elected by
district, possibly changing the way the Council
governs. On the national front—and in some local races as well—there seems to be frustration
with the status quo and a desire to move in new
directions—consider the rise of such disparate
candidates as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and
Bernie Sanders.
of corporations and other groups to influence
our Congressional representatives are, primarily with money — this has been going on since
at least the 19th century. Until now, good government groups managed to enact campaign
finance rules that helped limit the funds and influence of these groups, but Citizens United has
even defeated many of these efforts. The Citizens
United Committee has put together a “toolbox”
for us to use for background information for
forums, in communications, and as a resource
guide (http://www.lwvwacustudy.org/).
Because so many people have been so
outraged by the Citizens United deciIn many cities around the region, from
sion, a movement has begun to repeal
Seattle to Sammamish, council racit by constitutional amendment. The
es pit slow-development candidates
League of Women Voters of the US
against pro-development candidates.
currently has no position on amendThe outcome of these races could iming the Constitution, so they have
pact how the region copes with and
asked all local Leagues to participate
reacts to growth for years to come.
in a forum about it and to answer the
Amanda Clark
consensus questions. I was surprised
I think this frustration has given rise to an at- by how complicated and difficult the issue is, as
titude that we should “throw the bums out” all you will see while you read the cover article and
across the country. Voters see how much money other material in this month’s Voter.
is raised by Super PACs that don’t have to reveal
their sources. Most of the money goes to estab- In the meantime, our League has been busy
lished politicians, which has given rise first to working to educate voters. Over the last couple
the Tea Party, and now, to candidates with no of months, we spoke about ballot issues to many
experience at all of serving in elected office.
different audiences and sponsored or moderated several different candidate forums. Educated
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and knowledgeable voters are one of the best
has opened the eyes of voters, who have come means of fighting back against those who would
to believe their votes don’t count. Interesting- buy your vote or try to suppress your vote.
ly, when you think about it in financial terms,
it makes your vote count more —just think of We like to think that we can take a rest after the
how much money is going into buying your one November elections, but no such luck. We have
vote! In spite of all the money pouring in to in- an Action Workshop planned for November 21,
fluence the way you that vote, your vote counts with the theme of Creating a Progressive Tax
just as much as Warren Buffett’s.
System. The workshop should give you ideas
for communicating with your legislators about
Our October forum opened our eyes to just issues of import to League. December and the
how pervasive and long-standing the attempts holidays are slower, but our program planning
Continued on page 6
4
Calendar
The Voter November 2015
November
Sunday
Monday
1
Tuesday
2
Wednesday
3
Thursday
4
9
Saturday
5
6
Forum: Amending
the Constitution
7:00 p.m.
Internt’l Relat.
Comm. 12:45 p.m.
8
Friday
10
11
Board Meeting
9:00 a.m.
7
12
13
14
19
20
21
VETERAN’S DAY
(office closed)
15
16
17
18
Transportation
Comm. 10:00 a.m.
22
23
24
Climate Change
Comm. 10:00 a.m.
25
Legislative Action
Workshop in
Bellevue
26
27
28
THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
(office closed)
(office closed)
29
30
December 1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
Internt’l Relat.
Comm. 12:45 p.m.
Board Meeting
9:00 a.m.
5
12
Eastside Holiday
Party 11:30 a.m.
Units meet during shaded period
NOVEMBER
December Voter Deadline
Monday, November 9
Board Meeting
Saturday, November 7
9:00 a.m.
League Office
International Relations
Committee
Monday, November 2
12:45 p.m
League Office
Climate Change Committee
Thursday, November 19
10:00 a.m.
League Office
Forum: Amending the Constitution
Thursday, November 5
7:00 p.m.
Seattle First Baptist Church
Transportation Committee
Tuesday, November 17
10:00 a.m.
League Office
Legislative Action Workshop
Saturday, November 21
9:30 a.m.
St. Andrews Church
2650 148th AVE SE, Bellevue
See page 10 for details
DECEMBER
January Voter Deadline
Monday, December 7
No Forum this month.
Board Meeting
Saturday, December 5
9:00 a.m.
League Office
International Relations Comm.
Monday, December 7
12:45 p.m
League Office
Eastside Holiday Party
Tuesday, December 8
11:30 a.m.
See page 8 for details
5
The Voter November 2015
Forum/Board Briefs
Forum Schedule
Sept 10 - General Election
Oct 1 - Money in Politics
Nov 5 - Constitutional Amend. Study
Jan 7 - Program Planning
Feb 4 - Media’s Role in Gov’t
Mar 3 - Carbon Pricing
Apr 7 - Death Penalty
The League of Women Voters of Seattle-King
County (LWVS-KC) presents a public forum
most months between September and May,
generally on the first Thursday of the month at
7:00 p.m. Most forums are held at the Seattle
First Baptist Church, but occasionally they are
scheduled at other locations and times. The
tentative schedule of forums for 2015 appears
at left; check The Voter each month or the
LWVS-KC website, seattlelwv.org, for up-todate information. Past forums are frequently
televised and can be accessed from the resources
page of the website.
Board Briefs by Dora Taylor, Secretary
The League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County and Education Fund Boards met on October 3, 2015. This is
a summary of their work.
Two events to look for in the coming months
are the Constitutional Amendment forum in
November, to be held at the Seattle First Baptist
Church, and a forum in the spring on the topic
of climate change.
Paneen Davidson and Ginna Owens were approved by the Board to be on the Nominating
Committee. There is still a need for a person
to head a Social Justice Committee as well as
a Civics Education Committee. It was clarified
that these committee Chairs do not need to be
Board members.
During the September board meeting, the board
decided to request estimates from web design
companies to update the LWV King County website Zara Kublin is waiting for estimates
from at least one other design firm and should
have the numbers ready to present at the November meeting.
Amelia Woolley, Voter Services Chair, shared
that the ballot issue summaries are done and are
being edited now. Voter registration is also complete and there are several requests for speakers.
In the absence of Treasurer Cindy Piennett,
Amanda presented a plan to invest our money
in a Morgan Stanley account. Morgan Stanley
would administer it according to our directions. Some Board members had questions, so
the board moved to table the decision until next
month.
On the election front, there will be some early
discussions after the first of the year: There will
be a major maintenance and operations school
levy in February. The board will discuss that and
the initiative (I-123) to build a park on the old
viaduct at its January meeting. January is also
program planning time, so begin thinking about
what issues you would like to see addressed.
6
Leadership
The Voter November 2015
Leadership continued:
Cover article continued:
forum is in early January. Now is time to start al materials and has selected those materials
thinking about what you want us to focus on for that reflect the history and various viewpoints of
the next year.
constitutional scholars on the amendment process. Constitutional scholars have very different
Hindsight gives us the perfect vision we need views about whether to amend the Constitution.
to look back and see how the past has impacted Because one method is to call an actual Constithe current actions of our government, but it’s tutional Convention, there are serious concerns
important to look ahead and see what we can about how an Article V Constitutional Convendo to continue the League’s important work of tion would actually be conducted, and what limeducating voters to pay attention and care about its, if any, there would be on its ability to offer
protecting their votes.
amendments to the Constitution. The scholars
also differ on the role of the Courts in interpreting the US Constitution. The Voter materials
include articles on these two views. As it stands
now, five justices of the Supreme Court can and
have reinterpreted 50 years of precedent estabAmanda Clark
lished by previous courts’ interpretations of the
President
Constitution.
Also included in this Voter is a condensed version of a longer LWVUS Constitutional Amendment Guide, with consensus questions included.
Keep the consensus questions in mind as you do
your reading.
Please read the materials included with this Voter – and more from the national website if you
wish. Then attend the forum on November 5 at
7:00 pm at the Seattle First Baptist Church.
Mission Statement
The League of Women Voters of
Seattle-King County, a nonpartisan
political organization, encourages
informed and active participation
in government, works to increase
understanding of major public policy
issues and influences public policy
through education and advocacy.
7
Committees
The Voter November 2015
Committees
Climate Change Committee
DATE: Thursday, November 19
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: League Office
Economics and Taxation Committee
DATE: NOT MEETING THIS MONTH
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: 909 E. Newton #D-9, Seattle
Next meeting will be December 12.
Education Committee
DATE: NOT MEETING THIS MONTH
TIME: 11:00 a.m.
PLACE: League Office
We encourage participation in our committees
by all interested members. It’s a great opportunity to meet and talk to community leaders, stakeholder organizations, and experts where you can
have direct input on local issues that affect you.
Don’t see a committee that covers your issue?
Call the office and let us know. Sometimes people are working more informally without regularly scheduled meetings. If so, we may be able
to help connect you with them or help you start
your own.
Nest meeting will be December 10.
International Relations Committee
DATE: Monday, November 2
TIME: 12:45 p.m.
PLACE: League Office
Transportation Committee
DATE: Tuesday, November 17
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
PLACE: League Office
Diversity Policy
The League of Women Voters of Seattle-King
County (LWVS-KC), in both its values and
practices, affirms its beliefs and commitment
to diversity and pluralism, which means there
shall be no barriers to participation in any
activity of the League on the basis of gender,
race, creed, age, sexual orientation, national
origin or disability.
LWVS-KC
recognizes
that
diverse
perspectives are important and necessary
for responsible and representative decisionmaking. LWVS-KC subscribes to the belief
that diversity and pluralism are fundamental
to the values it upholds and that this
inclusiveness enhances the organization’s
ability to respond more effectively to
changing conditions and needs.
LWVS-KC affirms its commitment to
reflecting the diversity of Americans in its
membership, board, staff and programs.
8
Announcements
The Voter November 2015
King County Connects — Announcements
Happy Holidays
All Eastside members are invited to come (and bring a prospective member!) to the annual Eastside Holiday Party,
Tuesday, December 8, hosted by the Issaquah unit. It will
begin at 11:30 a.m. at St. Michael and All Saints Episcopal
Church, 325 SE Darst St. in Issaquah.
If you would like to attend, please RSVP to
Susan Cotterell at 425-392-6803 or [email protected].
Suggested donation, $8 per person.
Great Decisions for 2016
Beginning in February 2016, members of the Seattle-King County League of Women Voters
will be gathering to discuss these eight topics selected by the Foreign Policy Association:
Middle East
The Rise of ISIS
The Future of Kurdistan
Migration
The Koreas
The United Nations
Climate Change
Cuba and the U.S.
More details about the program and how to order the briefing book will be in the December
Voter. In Seattle, contact Rosalie McCreary at 206-687-7415 or [email protected] with
any questions, or to discuss the program.
The Voter November 2015
9
State and National Updates
Updates from our State and National Leagues
All members of the LWV of Seattle-King County are also automatically members of the LWV of Washington
and the LWV of the United States, whose work focuses on issues of state and national concern, respectively. Be
sure to sign up for weekly email newsletters and/or visit their websites: www.lwvwa.org and www.lwv.org for
the latest information.
Olympia and Our Washington
National News
Action workshops are top of the list of LWVWA
activities at the moment. See details and sign up
on the following page.
The Vote411.org team is wrapping up its five
month effort to bring reliable and comprehensive information about over 5,000 candidates and numerous ballot measures to voters
throughout Washington. We hope you took
advantage of their hard work and also shared it
with others.
In addition to the two national studies that we’ve
been working on this month and last, National
continues its efforts on both information and
advocacy for voting. Once again we were a primary organizer of National Voter Registration
Day where we partnered with hundreds of organizations to register tens of thousands of voters around the country. We are also continuing
efforts to reinstate the Voting Rights Act, fight
purging of voter rolls, and increase and improve
online voter registration.
Each year several League members attend a
budget workshop conducted by the Washington
State Budget and Policy Center to get an update on the State fiscal condition and upcoming
legislative plans. This year the Budget Matters
Summit is being held on Wednesday, December
9, at Benaroya Hall in Seattle. Call the office for
details and to register.
Another area of national focus is climate change.
The League recently sent a letter opposing the
Senate’s attempts to block the Clean Power Plan,
submitted comments to the EPA regarding
fracking and drinking water, and supporting the
EPA’s proposed methane pollution standards.
We encourage you to watch for and respond to
the national action alerts.
As planning moves forward for Council in June
2016, League is interested in learning about your
interest and participation in statewide League
events. What makes you want to attend (or not)?
Please help us by completing a brief survey. It
is quick and easy. Call or email the office to get
a copy or a link to respond online. Thanks so
much. 206-329-4848 or [email protected].
Finally, national has already begun work for the
presidential election in 2016. The quadrennial “Electing the President” materials have been
updated, and additional voter registration resources are being prepared to help us coordinate
our local efforts. We will be discussing how to
implement these in our league shortly. If you are
interested in participating, please call the office
and let us know; 206-329-4848.
10
Action
The Voter November 2015
Action
This year the League of Women Voters of Washington is pleased to present four Action Workshops
around the state, making it easier for you to attend and get in on the action. These workshops cover
LWVWA advocacy priorities for the upcoming legislative session and will give you an opportunity to:







Help us flex our political muscle in Olympia.
Get the inside scoop on what to expect for the upcoming legislative session.
Learn about critical issues facing our state, such as climate change, the challenge of raising
revenue, education, and campaign finance.
Discuss the issues of greatest interest to you with legislators and our lobby team.
Gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence to be a more effective, powerful advocate for the
issues you care about.
Network with other advocates involved in the League.
Meet LWVWA’s dynamic new lobbyist team: Nancy Sapiro and Pam Crone
For the first time, we are opening up these workshops to non-League members. This can be a great tool
to involve more people in our advocacy efforts and recruit members. Please consider inviting friends
who you think would like to know about our advocacy efforts.
Bellevue/King County
Saturday, November 21
9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Saint Andrew’s Lutheran Church
2650 148th Ave SE, Bellevue
Speaker: Creating a Progressive Tax System in WA
You can register at: http://bit.ly/LWVWAAct2015
More information, and the other 3 locations and dates, can be found at:
http://www.lwvwa.org/actionworkshop.html
Have questions? Contact Kathy Sakahara at 206-261-7797 or [email protected] .
Register for a 2015 Advocacy Workshop
I would like to attend the following workshop(s):
Registration fee of $25 includes lunch.
 Spokane-November 7
 Bellingham-November 14
 Bellevue-November 21
 Shelton-December 5
Name_______________________________________________________
League Affiliation______________________________________________
Phone______________________________________________________
Email ______________________________________________________
Address_____________________________________________________
City_______________________________State_________Zip__________
Please let us know what areas are of most interest to you. Please check all that apply.
 Agriculture
 Climate Change
 Budget and Revenue
 Economic Justice
 Campaign Finance and Elections
 Education
 Children and Family
 Health Care and Reproductive Rights
 State Parks
 Transportation
 Other _________________________
Please mail this completed form along with a check for $25 made out to: LWVWA,1402 Third Avenue, Suite 430, Seattle, Washington, 98101
11
The Voter November 2015
Voter Service
Voter Service
Please be sure to share our great
election information resources with
friends and family. Have a question
that you can’t find an answer to?
Call the office and speak to one of
our volunteers — we’ll get you
pointed in the right direction.
Have you returned your completed
ballot yet? Remember, the signed
envelope must either be postmarked
by November 3 or put in an official
ballot drop box/van by 8 p.m. that
same day.
A huge THANK YOU to Connie Hellyer and her team of Volunteers at
the Horizon House/First Hill unit! They did a tremendous job all summer and into the fall getting out into the community, registering voters
and sharing voter information.
We’ll have more about them and the overall work of the voter services
team next month, but... we’re already getting calls from individuals
and organizations who want to get involved in voter registration for
the presidential election! To do a coordinated plan that reaches out to
more underserved areas in King County we’ll need a number of volunteers. Want to be part of the planning process? Call the office or email
us at [email protected]. We’d love to have you. Energy and
enthusiasm are all that’s required.
12
Membership
The Voter November 2015
Getting Connected Membership News
Welcome to New Members:
Emily Bingham has lived in Seattle since she
was nine years old. She earned a bachelors degree from the University of Washington and returned to the University to earn an MBA when
her children started school. After graduate
school, Emily worked at Bank of America for
many years in commercial banking. She retired
from the bank after holding the position of Senior Vice President and Market Executive for
Commercial Banking
involved in the Kirkland city council, knew anything about it. Further, most of the attendees,
who were in their early thirties, did not intend
to vote. Liz decided to become an active member of the LWV to disseminate information to
her peers.
Pramila Jayapal is serving her first term in the
Washington State Senate, representing the 37th
Legislative District. Her home of nearly 20
years, the 37th is one of the most racially and
economically diverse districts in Washington
Emily and her husband have traveled extensively state.
post-retirement and most enjoyed month-long Born in India, Pramila came to the U.S. by hertrips to South America, particularly because she self when she was sixteen years old to attend
has been taking Spanish classes over the past Georgetown University. She worked on Wall
few years. Other interests include hiking, kay- Street as a financial analyst following graduation
aking, and film festivals. She served as precinct and them went on to earn an M.A. in Business
captain in 2008.
Administration from Northwestern University.
Emily has admired the work of the League over After working in the medical equipment indusmany years and is happy to be joining. She has try for a year, she decided to leave the private
expressed an interest in learning more about the sector and work in the social justice arena.
League and in giving back. She has been attend- Pramila spent the last twenty years working
ing Northeast’s unit meetings and has assisted both internationally and domestically as a leadwith voter registration.
ing advocate for women’s, immigrants’, civil and
Elizabeth Gerrish is currently the Key Account human rights. She worked on improving access
Manager at Zemax, LLC, a local software com- to women’s reproductive and primary health inpany. She has had a ten-year career as an optical ternationally and on increasing access to credengineer. With a B.S. in Physics from the Uni- it in low-income communities in the U.S. and
versity of Washington, Liz is currently working abroad.
toward a M.S. in Leadership and Management
from Western Governors University. Along
with her two amazing daughters, Liz is an active volunteer at Camp Unity and at Saint Jude
Catholic Church. In her spare time, Liz loves attending the opera and is an avid salsa dancer.
Issues that are important to her include diversity, gender inequality, domestic violence, and
education.
She is the founder and former executive director
of OneAmerica, Washington state’s largest immigrant advocacy organization, where she led
one of the largest voter registration efforts in the
state, helping more than 23,000 new Americans
register to vote. She also helped organize the coalition that successfully pushed for the passage
of the 2014 Washington State Dream Act, which
allows access to state higher education financial
aid for undocumented young people.
Liz became interested in the League of Women
Voters after attending a housewarming party. Pramila joined the League of Women Voters at
The issue of upcoming ballot measures came up the Spring fundraising event at the Wing Luke
and only one woman, who had recently become Museum.
The Voter November 2015
13
Membership
Elizabeth Larson graduated from New York
University in 1971 and worked as an occupational therapist in New York before moving
to the Pacific Northwest. For the last 30 years,
Beth worked as an occupational therapist for the
Lake Washington School District. Beth raised
her family in Kirkland, but she loves the wilderness, so a cabin in Eastern Washington frequently lures her to the Methow Valley. Beth
says she is passionate about wilderness and very
concerned about campaign finance reform. She
and her daughter-in-law, Clancy Schoenleber,
share a family membership in League.
In 2011, Clancy graduated from the UW with
a bachelor’s degree in Media and Communications.
Beth and Clancy want to explore how to contribute to progress - not just read about the
problems.
Brady Piñero Walkinshaw, State Representative from the 43rd Legislative District, joined
the League of Women Voters at the Spring event
at the Wing Luke Museum. He and his husband,
Micah Horwith, a marine biologist, live on Capitol Hill and share a household membership.
Brady joined the Legislature in 2013 and previously spent several years focused on food and
agriculture in developing countries at the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation.
We are thankful for all our
members and the great
work you do to help our
communities.
Happy Thanksgiving!
14
The Voter November 2015
Membership
Join the League!
Take part in informed discussions of the issues facing our communities. Members
automatically receive the VOTER, either in print or electronically, for the latest
updates on current studies and action, monthly forums, committee activities,
voter registration, and other volunteer opportunities. In addition, members
receive action alerts about legislation in Olympia and Washington, D.C., as well as
publications from the state League.
League membership is open to men and women.
Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: Email: Dues and contributions:
□ $75 one year individual membership
□ $115 one year household membership
□ $40 low income
□ $35 student
□ Enclosed is a contribution of $ Please make your check payable to LWVS-KC and return with this form or
go online to www.seattlelwv.org/membership.
Membership dues and contributions are not tax deductible; however, eligible tax
deductible contributions may be made to the LWVS-KC Education Fund.
□
This is a gift membership from: Thank you for supporting the work of the LWV!
Please return this form to:
League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County
1620 18th Avenue, Suite 101
Seattle, WA 98122-7007
Celebrating 95 years of educating
voters, improving elections, and
making democracy work!
15
The Voter November 2015
Features
Features
Transportation Committee Report of how people and goods can and must transit
by Janet Winans
through our streets and highways.
We listen very carefully as each new project is
The Transportation Committee meets the 3rd
proposed and the means to fund it are defined.
Tuesday of each month at 10:00 AM at the SeatWe opposed the initiative that repealed the Motle Office of the League of Women Voters.
tor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) in 1999, and
Members of the Economics and Taxation com- each of the new anti-tax initiatives that have
mittee joined the Transportation committee followed since then. The MVET required those
meeting in September to brainstorm ways to with the newest and most expensive cars to pay
cope with the colliding issues we are confront- more for their drives down our freeways than
ing as we struggle to integrate our League Posi- those with older and less expensive cars and
tions with the ever-more challenging demands brought in a steady stream of revenue. We advocate for methods that can provide sources of
coming from the political world.
revenue that grow at the same rate as inflation
The Transportation Committee and the League and population, or income, such as the MVET
Board struggled over how to be true to our po- did.
sitions while considering the need to maintain a
strong and vibrant transportation infrastructure The League of Women Voters of US, WA and
with the League’s Good Government positions S-KC oppose Washington State’s regressive tax
stating that levies should be used for capital structure. It allows those who are most wealthy
to provide the smallest share of their income
projects, not maintenance.
in taxes for the common good, while requiring
Politicians have ushered us into a time that many those with the least income to pay the highest
of our common good services are held sepa- percentage of their income.
rate from general fund governing. Common
good services are very vulnerable to being cut, Is it possible to describe the taxation/revenue
which became apparent when sales tax revenue process that began with the repeal of the MVET
crashed as a result of the Great Recession and as a time when the automobile reigned subelt-tightening reduced funding for all neces- preme and drivers gloried in the “free” part of
sary services. Now that the economy is improv- our highway system? Have ever-more expensive
ing, politicians are considering different fund- cars come to stand as symbols of the growing ining approaches that might be less vulnerable to come inequality of our communities? Now that
economic fluctuation by choosing to introduce drivers who purchase new and expensive autospecial levies, because the public does believe mobiles no longer have to pay a correspondingly expensive tax on their vehicles, which might
that common good services are essential.
have stymied the purchase of such vehicles in
Speakers to the Transportation Committee the past, have fancy cars become a more visirange from the long-range planners from the ble symbol of income inequality than they once
Puget Sound Regional Council, to City Coun- were?
cilmember Tom Rasmussen, and representatives describing progress on the SR520 Bridge. These questions are bringing our two commitWe understand the need for these facilities and tees together. We intend to explore these issues
the investments that must be made to build and and create what Nora Leech calls “A Primer
maintain them. Our role has been to advocate on Taxation,” which we will present to League
for public transit and for the understanding members early in 2016.
Continued on page 32
16
Features
The Voter November 2015
BOOK REVIEW by Vicky Downs
FACTORY MAN: HOW ONE FURNITURE MAKER BATTLED OFFSHORING,
STAYED LOCAL AND HELPED SAVE AN AMERICAN TOWN By Beth Macy
A journalist for the Roanoke Times, Beth Macy
has won many awards for her writing about
Appalachia and the people who live and work
there. In this book, she focuses on the Bassett
family’s furniture companies. In 1902, brothers John and Samuel Bassett took advantage of
cheap labor and local hardwoods to start their
furniture-making factory. The brothers became
wealthy and built mansions for themselves on a
hill overlooking the factory and
housing for its workers in the
town that inevitably was called
Bassett.
Third generation John Bassett III, known as
JBIII, resisted when Chinese manufacturers
began to undersell the Bassett company. JBIII
was a shrewd, forceful man who communicated
with everyone in an informal southern drawl interlaced with expletives and sophisticated ideas.
He talked to everyone, whether backwoods
American or city-born Chinese. Unlike others
in the business who had started to focus on retail, he wanted to save his factory and hold onto his workers. He
searched every aspect of the furniture business to cut costs. He
copied others’ designs, stopped
unions from entering his factory,
asked his own workers to suggest
factory floor improvements, and
offered incentives to push productivity. Eventually, he guaranteed
that his company would deliver
orders within a week: something
the Chinese couldn’t do.
For years, the business flourished
and the Bassett family became
millionaires by working their factory hands hard and paying them
little. They also ran just about everything in town. Second generation “Mr. Doug ran the school
board and country club, while Mr.
Ed was the keeper of the Kiwanis… Doug’s branch of the family
By the time China signed the
held the reins of [Bassett Baptist Church], while WTO treaty in 2001, JBIII hired Ruby, a ChiEd’s controlled the Methodist Church…Nobody nese-born woman living in America whom he
passed Go without the family blessing.”
trusted. She knew furniture, she could spy for
him in China and could translate as well. He
In the 1980s, Asian competition brought in took Ruby to China to search for the one factocheaper furniture and most of the Bassett fac- ry that made bedroom furniture exactly like his
tories turned from making furniture themselves own, but at half the cost. How could they do it?
to teaching the Chinese how to do so. Most Talking with the factory owner, JBIII realized
Bassett executives then turned to retail to make the Chinese government had essentially agreed
money on the outsourced products as their for- to do whatever necessary to undercut U.S. pricmer employees searched for other work. By the es.
late 20th century, no one cared about beautifully-made furniture that could last for gener- No wonder Chinese products flooded the US
ations, and they didn’t care what it was made and millions of jobs were lost! JBIII, however,
from. Consumers wanted choices in color and was determined to “reshore” his products. He
style, and they appreciated paying the lowest invested in new machinery and competed with
possible price.
higher quality and better service, not just pricContinued on page 31
The Voter November 2015
Program
Amending the U.S.
Constitution
by the LWVUS Constitutional Amendment Committee
Patricia Donath, Chair (LWVUS Board)
Linda Powers Bilanchone (SC)
Shamira Gelbman (IN)
Ann Luther (ME)
Monica Marquez (CA)
Ann Mostoller (TN)
17
Program
18
Program
The Voter November 2015
Editor’s Note: The materials that follow were prepared by the LWVUS Study Committee. They include two
short synopses of longer articles, a detailed study guide that includes the consensus questions we are discussing
this month, and a bibliography. The synopses and the study guide have been revised to remove some citations
and references that interrupt the flow of text in a print version. The original versions can be found online at
www.lwv.org on the Constitutional Amendment Study page and on the LWVS-KC website at www.seattlelwv.
org/constlamend.
Synopsis of
“Constitutional Amendmentitis”
by Kathleen Sullivan
Writing in 2001, Sullivan notes a flurry of activity, with more Constitutional amendment
proposals active then (and now) than at any
time since the 1970s. The Constitution is very
difficult to amend. Of the 11,000 amendments
that have been proposed since the Constitution
was adopted, only 27 have actually passed. As
a result, the Constitution remains a “relatively
pristine document.”
Those that have passed have little altered the
overall structure of the Constitution. According
to Sullivan:
The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights,
were added in one fell swoop by the First
Congress and ratified in 1791 as part of a bargain that had induced reluctant states to ratify
the Constitution. And the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments, which abolished slavery and gave
African Americans rights of equal citizenship,
were essentially foisted on the southern states
by the Reconstruction Congress as a condition
of readmission to the union in the wake of the
Civil War.
stitutional framework: The 17th Amendment
provided for popular election of senators and
the 22nd imposed a two-term limit on the presidency. And only four amendments were enacted
to overrule decisions of the Supreme Court: The
11th Amendment barred suits in federal court by
citizens of one state against another state, the
14th recognized the United States citizenship of
African Americans, the 16th permitted Congress
to impose an income tax, and the 26th lowered
the voting age to 18--all in contrast to what the
Supreme Court had said the Constitution permitted or required. The remaining handful of
amendments were national housekeeping measures, the most important of which was the 25th
Amendment’s establishment of procedures for
presidential succession.
Against this backdrop, the current enthusiasm
for amending the constitution is concerning
in that “there are strong structural reasons for
amending the Constitution only reluctantly and
as a last resort.”
1. Stability. It has stood the test of time. “If it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Stability is one of the
key virtues of having a Constitution in the
first place. Amending it too often undercuts
that purpose and undermines public confiThe remaining amendments have tinkered litdence in the basic structure of our governtle with the original constitutional design. Four
ment.
expanded the right to vote in federal elections:
The 15th Amendment eliminated racial classi- 2. The Rule of Law. The Constitution is our
fundamental charter of government. It
fications in voting, the 19th extended the franshould not be cluttered up with the sorts of
chise to women, the 24th abolished the poll tax,
directives found in legislation. The point of
th
and the 26 lowered the voting age. Only two
having a constitution is to establish a septried outright to govern social policy: The 18th
aration between the legal and the political
st
Amendment imposed Prohibition and the 21
realms. The constitution lays down those
repealed it. Only two amendments worked sigfundamental political ideals (equality, repnificant structural changes in the original con-
The Voter November 2015
19
Program
resentation, individual liberties) that place
so abruptly changing interpretations of the
limits on how far any short-term, political
Constitution that they appear more politics
majority may go. The Constitution is our
than law. But that fact does not strengthhigher law. The rest is politics. Too-frequent
en the case for more readily amending the
amendments erode the boundary between
Constitution. Rather, it illustrates the very
our higher law and politics, making support
pitfalls of constitutional mutability that
for the Constitution a matter of political
amendment fever would exacerbate.
preference.
In summary, this does not mean that the Con3. Coherence. The Constitution was written as stitution should never be amended. But for all
a unified document; amendments are piece- the reasons outlined above, there should be a
meal and can affect other parts of the whole. strong presumption against doing so except
For instance, a balanced budget amendment when changes consistent with the Constitution’s
could affect taxing, borrowing, and spend- broad purposes are unlikely to be enacted by oring currently accomplished by a simple ma- dinary legislative means.
jority vote by imposing supermajorities on
these actions, thereby transferring so much
power to the minority that they may extort Note: Kathleen Sullivan’s full article is item 2 in
concessions in other areas, with the potential the bibliography on page 30.
for significant spill-over effects. This is only
one example, but it is clear that amendments
can create conflicts within the document as
a whole and thus have repercussions beyond
their specific subject matter.
4. Generality. The Constitution is purposefully drafted in general terms. Specifics are to
come through judicial interpretation. However, generally worded amendments can be
problematic. Either by what it specifies or
does not specify, an amendment can have
the potential to effect a major change to our
fundamental governing document such as
a redistribution of powers among the three
branches of government. Striking the appropriate balance is incredibly difficult to get
right.
5. The Role of the Court. We have granted
the Supreme Court broad interpretive powers. Constitutional amendments, especially
those that overturn Court decisions, undermine respect for the legitimacy of the Court.
It also erodes the social benefits of peaceful
conflict resolution. Remember that we have
amended the Constitution only four times
in order to overrule the Supreme Court. The
Court itself can squander public respect by
20
Program
Synopsis of
“Constitutional Amendments and the
Constitutional Common Law”
by Professor Adrian Vermeule
The Voter November 2015
•
The gist of the paper is that we should not be
predisposed against using the Article V constitutional amendment process. Vermeule critiques
the position attributed to Kathleen Sullivan and
others that there should be a general presumption against amending the Constitution. Such a
view favors constitutional change through court
decisions as opposed to constitutional amend- •
ments. He argues that this position, when widely adopted, exerts a drag on the amendment
process that may do more harm than good.
By disadvantaging the amendment process, the
court-centered view tips the balance in favor of
constitutional change brought about through •
common law judicial decisions, which he believes hold equal or greater peril. The alternative to the amendment process is continuous
reinterpretation of the Constitution left to the
courts – that is, “to an ongoing constitutional
convention whose delegates are all judges (and •
hence all lawyers).” He points out that no member of another profession has ever been appointed
to the Supreme Court, although no law prohibits
the appointment of others. Whatever the other
advantages or disadvantages of the amendment
process, it would presumably involve a more diverse group of actors.
In responding directly to Kathleen Sullivan’s paper, he argues that the case against the Article V
process is based on a fallacy: that the alternative
to constitutional amendment is stability, when
in fact the alternative is continual judicial updating of the Constitution, which often produces as bad or worse results than the constitutional
amendment process does.
Here are some of the prominent arguments that
Vermeule counters:
• Amendments politicize the Constitution:
so, he argues, do judicial interpretations of
the Constitution, as we have seen in the continuing political struggle after Roe v Wade
and as we may yet see with decisions on
campaign finance, the Affordable Care Act,
and same-sex marriage.
Amendments clutter up the Constitution:
the real alternative to lengthy text in the
Constitution is to have a complex and tangled underbrush of judicial decisions. “A
complex society will produce complex constitutional law; the only real question is
whether it is good to outsource … complexity… to the adjudicative process.”
Amendments represent a “mutiny” against
the Supreme Court: on the contrary, more
amendments would leave less room for judicial flip-flops, over-rulings, creative and
novel interpretations. An increased rate of
amendment might actually legitimize the
Court.
Amendments have bad unintended consequences: judicial updating may also have
unforeseen consequences, as may judicial
inaction or amendment restraint. “Worry
about perverse consequences … yields paralysis, not safety.”
Amendments should not encode “mere social policies” but should expand individual
rights or improve government structure:
why shouldn’t other types of amendments
be considered as circumstances change? The
fact that the previous 27 amendments can be
largely categorized this way is “curve fitting”
on a very small number of amendments.
In conclusion, Vermeule argues that both the
amendment process and the judge-made constitutional law may be appropriate alternatives
in different circumstances.
Note: Professor Vermeule is responding to arguements made in Kathleen Sullivan’s What’s Wrong
with Constitutional Amendments, which is a part
of a longer document; item 1 in the bibliography
on page 30. Prof. Vermeule’s full article is item 3
in the bibliograpy.
The Voter November 2015
Constitutional Amendment
Study Guide
This study of amending the U.S. Constitution
is in three parts. The questions in Part I are to
develop guidelines for evaluating constitutional amendment proposals. Part II asks about aspects of an Article V Constitutional Convention
that may be important in conducting such a
Convention. Part III relates to how the League
might put these guidelines into practice and
asks two overall balancing questions between
process and positions.
21
Program
islatures of two-thirds of the states (34 at present) may ask Congress to call a convention to
propose amendments to the Constitution; this
is commonly called an Article V Convention.
Amendments proposed by either method must
be ratified by three-fourths of the states, which
means 38 of the 50 states at present.
The first method has been used by Congress to
submit 33 amendments to the states, beginning
with the Bill of Rights. Of these, 27 were approved; 26 are currently in effect, while one –
the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) — was ultimately repealed by a second amendment, the
Constitutional Background
21st. The 21st Amendment was also the only
In 1787, delegates from twelve of the thirteen one ratified by conventions in the states, rathstates then in existence met in Philadelphia to er than by state legislatures. In June 1920, the
revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the U.S.
they drafted a totally new document, what we Constitution provided for state legislatures, not
know as the U.S. Constitution. It was unani- citizen referendum campaigns, to ratify amendmously ratified by the states. While this all seems ments.
very long ago, how the Constitution began and The second method, an Article V Convention,
how the 1787 Convention was convened and has never been successfully invoked.
conducted are cited in the current debate about
calling a Convention under Article V.
League Background
Here’s what Article V of the U.S. Constitution
says about amending the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both
houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the legislatures of two thirds of
the several states, shall call a convention for
proposing amendments, which, in either case,
shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as
part of this Constitution, when ratified by
the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . . .
Perhaps it goes without saying that the League
of Women Voters believes it is right and permissible to amend the Constitution of the United
States when circumstances demand. The League
was born from the successful, decades-long effort to pass the 19th Amendment.
The question for us today is: what are the shared
values and beliefs within the League – what consensus do we have – regarding the circumstances that might allow or compel the League to endorse a constitutional amendment or an Article
V Convention?
If we do find that we have consensus on some
of the principles that should guide us, mobilizSo Article V provides two ways of proposing ing the organization to advocacy for or against
amendments to the nation’s fundamental char- a particular amendment would fall under the
ter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both established protocol by which the League deterchambers, may propose constitutional amend- mines its advocacy agenda, as laid out in Impact
ments to the states for ratification. OR, the leg- on Issues. (http://lwv.org/content/impact-issues).
22
Program
The Voter November 2015
We might support an amendment that was in
concert with League positions, but we might not
support every amendment that was in concert
with League positions. In other words, having a
position on the issue is necessary but might not
be sufficient for the League to endorse a constitutional amendment.
c)
Whether the amendment would either
make our political system more democratic or
protect individual rights.
d)
Whether the policy objective can be
achieved by a legislative or political approach
that is less difficult than a constitutional amendment.
e)
Whether the public policy objective
The first question to ask is whether League po- is more suited to a constitutional and general
sitions support the proposed amendment, but approach than to a statutory and detailed apeven if the answer is an unqualified “yes,” we proach.
need to examine other factors. The remainder of
this Guide helps frame the discussion of those Consensus Question 1.a
other factors.
Background
Question No. 1.a asks if we think restraint is
a critical element in considering whether to
amend the Constitution. Is it important to exercise restraint, amending the Constitution only
In determining whether to support or oppose a in the most serious circumstances? Matters are
particular constitutional amendment or the Ar- “acute” when they present extreme problems
ticle V Constitutional Convention process, the with dire consequences; and they are of “abidfirst and most important question is whether ing importance” when they impact not only this
the League supports or opposes the subject of generation, but the generations to come.
the amendment based on League public policy
Points of View
positions. Once League public policy positions
are applied, Part I asks, “What are the other Amending the Constitution is one of the most
values that League members share regarding serious and important acts of the people actthe purpose of the Constitution and its malle- ing through their government. Constitutional
ability?” Many believe the Constitution to be a amendments are binding for the long-term. The
near-sacred document, only to be amended in stability that the Constitution provides is one of
the most serious circumstances. Do we agree? its key virtues, and that stability will be underUnder what circumstances is it appropriate to mined if the Constitution is amended too often.
amend the Constitution? What makes a sound Hence, restraint is in order; the Constitution is
and well-crafted amendment proposal?
an important unifying document and amendments should address matters of acute and abidConsensus Question 1
ing importance, rather than being cluttered with
Which of these should or should not be a con- passing concerns. If you agree that these are imsideration in identifying an appropriate and portant considerations, answer “should.”
well-crafted amendment?
The Constitution is a tool provided by the
a)
Whether the public policy objective ad- framers for bending government to the will of
dresses matters of such acute and abiding im- the people and when popular sentiment is overportance that the fundamental charter of our whelmingly in favor of change, the people should
be able to use Article V. Even matters that don’t
nation must be changed.
b)
Whether the amendment as written would currently seem to be acute or of abiding importance can nonetheless be very significant. The
be effective in achieving its policy objective.
supermajority requirements built into Article V
Part I
Considerations for Evaluating
Constitutional Amendment Proposals
The Voter November 2015
23
Program
are a high enough hurdle to avoid “clutter.” Ad- doctrine to develop over time. If you agree with
ditional norms for restraint or against change this point of view, answer “should not.”
are unnecessary. If you agree with this point of
Consensus Question 1.c
view, answer “should not.”
Background
Consensus Question 1.b
Background
Question 1.c asks whether we think the use of
the amendment process should be limited to
one of two primary goals: (1) to make the structures of government more responsive to the will
of the people (e.g. extension of the franchise,
direct election of senators); OR (2) to protect
or expand individual rights from government
overreach (e.g. most of the Bill of Rights). Except for a few housekeeping amendments and
those passed under unusual circumstances,
nearly all the others have dealt with one or the
other of these two fundamentals.
Question 1.b asks if it is important to consider whether an amendment will work. Can it be
readily implemented to achieve its intended
policy outcome? Will the courts properly interpret the amendment? If it will not be effective in
achieving its policy objective, or may have unintended consequences, then its purpose will not
be fulfilled. On the other hand, such an amendment could articulate policy goals that may not
be practically attained, but rather that may provide guidance to the courts for deciding future
cases or require statutes to bring laws into com- Points of View
pliance with the new constitutional principle.
The majority of amendments to the Constitution
to date fall into one or the other of these two catPoints of View
egories. Most ordinary policy matters should be
It is important to consider whether an amend- resolved through the political process by elected
ment will achieve its intended policy objec- representatives. The failed Prohibition Amendtives or will likely fail to do so. This is crucial ment was proposed to entrench a policy preferin preventing unintended consequences and in ence of the moment, and it had to be repealed
giving the courts clear, unambiguous direction. by another amendment. Such amendments
Otherwise, judges and legislators are free to ig- limit the range of democratic action for the funore or dilute the intention of the amendment. ture and undermine the higher purpose of the
Furthermore, unenforceable amendments, un- Constitution. The emphasis in the Constitution
workable amendments or amendments that should be on the bigger questions: equality, repestablish unattainable goals can undermine the resentation, and liberty. If you agree that these
legitimacy and power of the Constitution – as are important considerations, answer “should.”
well as failing to achieve their purpose. If you
agree that these are important considerations, On the other hand, perhaps the fact that the
majority of ratified amendments fall into one of
answer “should.”
these two classes is merely a result of the fact
Sometimes it is important just to get started, that there have not been that many amendments
even if an amendment will need to be interpret- or that other important needs have not yet arised by courts and legislatures over time. Even en. What constitutes a mere policy preference of
an amendment that won’t achieve its intended the current majority may not be clear without
policy objectives can serve an important pur- the long lens of history. Which issues are funpose in affirming and entrenching fundamental damental, versus which are not, may not be all
principles. Such amendments may not immedi- that clear to proponents or opponents at the
ately change the rule of law, but they may give time. If you agree with this point of view, answer
the courts and legislatures direction and a place “should not.”
to start building case law or statutes that allow
24
Program
Consensus Question 1.d
Background
The Voter November 2015
resolved and ambiguity could allow the courts to
misinterpret. Other topics demand a clear values statement and general provisions that may
be subject to evolving judicial interpretations.
Most amendments that have been adopted have
broad general provisions, in keeping with the
pattern set by the first 10 amendments, which
we know as the Bill of Rights.
Question 1.d asks whether we think the use of
the amendment process should be focused on
those circumstances where there is no other
course of action or where other courses of action have been exhausted, such as executive action, legislation at the state or federal levels, and Points of View
traditional politics – electing representatives
and appointing judges who are committed to It is important to consider whether a statutory
or a constitutional approach is best suited to
supporting the desired reform.
achieve particular policy goals. Statutes typicalPoints of View
ly set out how a policy should be accomplished.
The Constitution should be amended sparing- Statutes have specific detail to resolve important
ly, and an amendment cannot be strictly nec- issues and reduce ambiguity, and statutes can
essary if other avenues exist for accomplishing be more readily changed to meet evolving conthe same outcome. Using the Constitution to ditions over the years. Constitutional amendembody specific policy proposals makes those ments, on the other hand, are generally written
policies more difficult to revise or reverse in in broad policy terms and set basic values for
the future if circumstances change. Moreover, American government. Interpretation is left to
resources are not infinite and it is important to the courts. Some would also argue that convertfocus political action on those strategies that are ing the Constitution from a statement of politmost likely to achieve the policy objective. If ical ideals into a list of specific public policies
you agree that these are important consider- erodes the stature of the Constitution. In addition, policy specifics within the Constitution
ations, answer “should.”
make those specifics more difficult to revise or
On the other hand, a policy objective may be reverse in the future if circumstances change.
so important that pursuing a number of strate- If you agree that these are important considergies is the best course of action. When it is un- ations, answer “should.”
clear what paths are most likely to succeed, we
shouldn’t consider which ones would be better, In contrast, the more important question may be
a constitutional amendment should be part of getting action on the overall policy, rather than
the mix. If an amendment is a general policy the specifics of making the policy work. When
statement and leaves details and specifics to the Congress or the courts fail to implement an imcourts, then judicial decisions can also play a portant policy, amending the Constitution may
role. If you agree with this point of view, answer be the only way to make a change. Many state
constitutions already have considerable detail.
“should not.”
The history behind a constitutional amendment
Consensus Question 1.e
could help guide the courts in correctly interpreting an amendment. If you agree with this
Background
point of view, answer “should not.”
Question 1.e asks whether the objective is more
suited to a constitutional approach than a statutory one. Some topics are best suited to the detailed and specific approach provided by a statute because important issues need to be clearly
25
The Voter November 2015
Part II
Aspects of an Article V Constitutional
Convention
As noted in the Background, Article V of the
U.S. Constitution provides two ways of proposing amendments to the nation’s fundamental charter. Under one method, called an Article V Constitutional Convention, legislatures
of two-thirds of the states (34 at present) may
ask Congress to call a convention to propose
amendments to the Constitution. Amendments
proposed by this method must be ratified by
three-fourths of the states, 38 at present.
Program
Consensus Question 2.a
Background
Question 2.a highlights the importance of the
process by which the Convention delegates
meet, hold discussions, and make decisions. It is
asking whether basic “open meetings” and “freedom of information” rules should be in place for
a Constitutional Convention. Under such rules,
the formal business of the Convention is open
to the public and the press, and the working
documents of the Convention are accessible to
the public and the press, but private discussions
among delegates are also permitted.
An Article V Convention has never been suc- Points of View
cessfully invoked.
Full knowledge of governmental action is a basic
Part II considers whether the League would sup- tenet of the democratic process. The American
port such a convention, and if so, under what people depend on full disclosure of processes
circumstances.
carried out by their representatives in order to
be able to govern themselves effectively. Answer
Consensus Question 2
“Agree” if you feel that open meetings and FOIA
What conditions should be in place for an Arti- concepts should apply.
cle V Constitutional Convention initiated by the
On the other hand, some processes are more
states?
a)
The Convention must be transparent likely to succeed if they are conducted behind
closed doors. Successful governing is the outand not conducted in secret.
b)
Representation at the Convention must come of strategic compromise, and the give and
be based on population rather than one state, take of the process may happen more readily
when it is conducted out of the public eye. This
one vote.
c)
State delegates must be elected rather way of proceeding is often implemented for sensitive diplomatic or contractual negotiations. It
than appointed.
d)
Voting at the Convention must be by has also been argued that today’s transparency
would have made impossible the compromisdelegate, not by state.
e)
The Convention must be limited to a es required to create our current Constitution.
Answer “Disagree” if you feel that the Convenspecific topic.
f)
Only state resolutions on a single topic tion deliberations should be allowed to be concount when determining if a Convention must ducted in secret.
be called.
Consensus Question 2.b
g)
The validity of state “calls” for an Article V Constitutional Convention must be deter- Background
mined by the most recent action of the state. If
a state has enacted a rescission of its call, that Question 2.b asks whether representation at a
convention should be based on population rathrescission should be respected by Congress.
er than giving each state one vote. These are two
different ways of proceeding – quite different
26
Program
in the philosophy on which they are based. The
first, based on population, provides for each individual citizen – the people – to be represented; the second provides an outcome in which
individual states are represented and gives more
weight to smaller states.
The Voter November 2015
ed delegates can be controlled by the appointing body and kept from straying to topics other
than those the Convention was called to consider. Furthermore, the structure of the ratification process reflects the founders’ view that
consideration of proposed amendments is to be
by states. So whomever each state chooses to
Points of View
represent that state, and the method by which
With representation based on population, the they are chosen, should be acceptable to the rest
one-person, one-vote principle is the guiding of the nation. Answer “Disagree” if you think
rule; it is the appropriate way to represent all states should be able choose a method of delethe American people in a governing body that gate selection other than popular election.
has the power to decide to change the Constitu- Consensus Question 2.d
tion by which this country is governed. This is
representative democracy at its fairest. Answer Background
“Agree” if this seems right to you.
Question 2.d asks whether voting at the ConAlternatively, representation should not be vention should be by delegate rather than by
based on population because the United States state.
is simply a federation of states; hence, it is the
states that should be represented in the process This means that whatever the method of selecno matter what the population of the state. An- tion of delegates to the Convention, each delswer “Disagree” if you think state rights should egate would have one vote, and they need not
vote by bloc with their state. A state delegation’s
predominate.
votes could be divided on any given action.
Consensus Question 2.c
Points of View
Background
Voting by delegate means that each delegate
Question 2.c asks whether delegates should be brings their own judgment and conscience to the
elected rather than appointed. Some governing process, and need not be bound by the dictates
bodies are elected by the people and other gov- of state interests. This is the way the original
erning bodies are appointed by other elected or Constitutional Convention worked, and it is the
appointed officials – by governors or by legisla- way the U.S. House of Representatives works. If
tures, for instance.
this is the way you think it should work for a
Constitutional Convention, answer “Agree.”
Points of View
Voting by state reflects the view that the United
Election of state delegates is the fairest and most States is a federation of states and the delegates
democratic way to identify individuals who will should be bound to vote as a bloc consistent
represent and make decisions for all the Ameri- with that state’s position on the question. Pocan people. Answer “Agree” if this is your point litical party nominating conventions often vote
of view.
by state bloc, at least on the first round. If you
Expertise is vital in a situation where under- think delegates should be bound together in
standing of legal nuances and historical prec- state blocs, answer “Disagree.”
edents of constitutional law are important; an
appointment process is the best way to achieve
the needed expertise. Some argue that appoint-
27
The Voter November 2015
Consensus Question 2.e
Background
Question 2.e asks whether the Convention must
be limited to a specific topic. There are two possibilities: 1) once the Convention is called to order, only one topic may be considered– presumably the one on which 34 states have called for
a Convention; or, 2) the Convention once convened can consider any topic that the delegates
wish to consider. This second option raises the
issue of a “runaway convention,” one that could
go beyond the issues that prompted the states to
call a convention. The 1787 Convention is the
only precedent for a convention like one called
under Article V. It was called to revise the Articles of Confederation and, in the end, wrote a
whole new Constitution.
Program
control of Congress as a means of taking action
when Congress is unable or unwilling to do so.
In order to be fully effective, Congress should
not try to limit the agenda of a Convention. The
Convention, once convened, sets its own scope.
A Constitutional Convention should have the
power to do whatever the delegates wish to do;
that is what the founders in Philadelphia did at
their Constitutional Convention. If this kind of
latitude seems important, answer “Disagree.”
Consensus Question 2.f
Background
Question 2.f asks whether state resolutions calling for a Convention must all address the same
topic. Congress has the responsibility to call a
Constitutional Convention when two-thirds of
the states ask for one, but it is unclear how ConIt is prudent to acknowledge one point on which gress should count the two-thirds. Should state
most observers agree: state calls for a Conven- resolutions calling for a Convention on a speciftion cannot be for a specifically worded propos- ic topic be counted as a request for a Convention
al. The wording of the proposed amendment on only that topic when determining if 34 state
must be open enough to allow the Convention requests have been received? Or should Conto deliberate and craft the amendment to be of- gress count every state resolution regardless of
fered to the states for ratification.
its substantive content?
Points of View
Points of View
If the Convention can be limited to a specific
topic, there will be no fear of a runaway Convention – one in which any issue is legitimate
and can be the subject of a proposed constitutional amendment. Such an unlimited Convention could threaten the structure of government,
the protection of individual rights, or any other
combination of issues. It would not respect the
states that called for a Convention because of
their concerns about a certain topic. Finally,
it is important to remember that the 1787 Convention was called just to “revise” the Articles of
Confederation but wrote an entirely new Constitution, one without the Bill of Rights. Answer “Agree” if you think a convention should
be limited to a specific topic.
Counting state requests by topic respects the
will of the states that call for a Convention on
a particular topic rather than combining very
different requests to get a result that could be
inconsistent with a state’s intent. Counting by
topic also increases the possibility that the Convention would be limited to that topic, and ensures that there truly is sufficient interest in the
topic to call a Convention. If Congress counts
only those state resolutions that relate to a specific topic, then it is more difficult to get to the
required two-thirds and a Constitutional Convention is less likely. Answer “Agree” if you believe that only state resolutions on a single topic
should be counted by Congress.
There is nothing in the Constitution that limThe Article V Constitutional Convention pro- its state calls or how they should be counted.
cess is a tool provided to the states outside the The Constitutional Convention process was de-
28
Program
signed for those times when there is significant
discontent, and counting all state calls together
better reflects widespread concern even if the
concerns are very different. Since a Constitutional Convention should consider whatever issues arise, there is no need for state resolutions
to be counted only when they are on the same
topic. Moreover, if Congress counts only those
state resolutions that relate to a specific topic,
then it is more difficult to get to the required
two-thirds and a Constitutional Convention is
less likely. If this is your perspective, answer
“Disagree.”
Consensus Question 2.g
Background
Question 2.g asks whether, once a state has
called for a Convention, it can take that call
back. States can issue their calls for a Convention
without a time limit or expiration date, and the
calls, once issued, can be considered valid or “in
force” indefinitely. After a period of time, long
or short, changes in the political climate or in
the majority controlling a state legislature might
cause a state to change its mind about such a call
and try to take it back or rescind the call. Should
those rescissions be counted by Congress when
tallying whether the required 2/3 threshold has
been reached?
Points of View
If states are not allowed to take back their calls,
then the accumulation of calls counting toward
the 2/3 threshold does not really reflect the view
of a super-majority of states at the same point
in time. It is merely a matter of accretion, with
some of those calls representing an historical
artifact of a sentiment no longer held. Whichever point of view is favoring the call merely has
to wait through time to capture the majority in
their legislature – no matter how fleeting – and
once they’ve issued the call, it cannot be undone
by future action, no matter how much the majority view may have changed. States should be
allowed to rescind their calls. If this is your view,
answer “Agree.”
The Voter November 2015
Once a state issues a call for a Convention, that
call forms the basis of action by other states. As
the movement for a Convention gains momentum, new states coming on board rely on the actions of the other, early-adopting states in making their decisions whether to join. Furthermore,
if states are allowed to take back their calls, they
may be more likely – or more cavalier – in issuing the call in the first place. States should have
to think twice and three times about calling for
a Constitutional Convention; and once the call
is issued, it should stand for all time because the
process is ongoing. If this is your view, answer
“Disagree.”
Consensus Question 3
Should the League oppose an Article V Constitutional Convention to propose amendments
to the U.S. Constitution because of unresolved
questions about the powers and processes of
such a convention?
Background
There is a debate among scholars as to whether
a Constitutional Convention can be controlled
in any way. Those who believe it cannot be controlled are afraid of a “runaway convention”:
one that could go beyond its original purpose
and alter the Constitution in any way it chose.
Other people are uncertain whether the powers
and processes of a convention can be controlled
and worry about the magnitude of the risk. Still
others are convinced that the Convention would
be bound by its “call” or that Congress would
have the power to impose some controls. Finally, there is the view that control does not matter
– a Constitutional Convention is intended to be
an unrestrained process. There is no consensus on how these questions would be answered.
Congress has not passed any legislation to clarify, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to
hear cases related to amendment procedures,
calling such questions “political” and not ones
for the Court to consider.
29
The Voter November 2015
Program
Points of View
League position even if:
There is simply no way to be sure that the scope
of an Article V Constitutional Convention can
be limited. Indeed, the precedent suggests it
cannot. Neither the states nor the Congress
have any authority to control a convention – it
will be governed by its own rules. The courts
do not intervene in “political” questions, which
this certainly is. The result? An unlimited Convention could threaten the structure of government, the protection of individual rights, or
any other basic constitutional tenet of our democracy. In addition, even if one is uncertain
whether a “runaway convention” is avoidable,
the risks associated with that potential result are
too great to support the convention approach. If
you agree, answer “Should.”
a. There are significant problems with the actual
amendment as proposed?
Most proponents of an Article V Constitutional
Convention are comfortable that the Convention would not deal with issues beyond its call.
They are satisfied that the scope of the Convention can be limited. Some feel that limits can
be set by the States, others believe that Congress
could maintain control by refusing to send an
amendment on to the states for ratification or
that the ratification requirement by 3/4 of the
states is a safeguard. Still others are unconcerned about an unrestrained convention process. If you agree, answer “Should not.”
Points of View
Part III
Balancing Questions
Part III relates to how the League might put the
guidelines from Part I and Part II into practice
and asks two overall balancing questions between process and positions. Should the evaluation guidelines from Part I and the process
criteria from Part II always be applied or may
they be set aside in the overall context of any
particular amendment proposal?
Consensus Question 4
4. Should the League consider supporting a
constitutional amendment that will advance a
b. It is being put forward by a procedural process the League would otherwise oppose?
Consensus Question 4.a
Background
Question 4.a asks whether we might want to allow for circumstances where our commitment
to a policy outcome could overcome the evaluation guidelines developed in Part I. Would we
ever relax the considerations for determining an
appropriate and well-crafted amendment to try
to achieve a desired policy outcome?
Some believe the League could support a constitutional amendment as a way of advancing the
general topic of a proposed amendment even
if there may be significant problems with the
amendment itself. They argue that a constitutional amendment can provoke debate and draw
public attention to the topic, and that the debate
might help advance the issue in Congress, the
states, or the courts. A proposed amendment
can serve as a grassroots organizing device, even
if the amendment itself might be flawed or have
little chance of passage. If you agree, answer
“Should consider.”
Others argue that the League should support
a proposed constitutional amendment based
on the amendment itself, and that the League
should not campaign for an amendment when
it may be ineffective, counterproductive, conflict with other constitutional values, or have
little chance of passage. They suggest that the
League’s reputation for knowledgeable action
means that supporting an amendment that has
significant problems is inconsistent with League
values. If you agree, answer “Should not consider.”
30
Program
The Voter November 2015
Consensus Question 4.b
Bibliography
Background
[Numbers in brackets identify the consensus questions
for which the source is particularly relevant.]
Question 4. b asks whether we might want to allow for circumstances where our commitment
to a policy outcome could overcome our commitment to good process, as developed in Part
II. Would we ever relax our standards about
whether and how an Article V Convention
should be called and conducted in order to try
to achieve a desired policy outcome?
Points of View
Some argue that dire circumstances and a paralyzed Congress might mean the League should
use whatever tools are at our disposal. They believe circumstances could be so damaging and
intransigent that the League could support calling an Article V Convention even if there are
objections to using the Article V Convention in
general or if there are objections to the way that
the Convention is being called and controlled.
They argue that the threat of a Convention may
help advance the issue in Congress, the states,
or the courts, and that even if a Convention is
called using a flawed process, the high ratification threshold provides a safeguard against the
worst outcomes. If you agree, answer “Should
consider.”
Others argue that the League should not take
the stance that the ends justify the means; we
should not abandon our commitment to democratic process just because we find the outcome
attractive in a particular case. If you agree, answer “Should not consider.”
“Great and Extraordinary Occasions: Developing
Guidelines for Constitutional Change,” The Constitution Project at the Century Foundation, http://
www.constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/32.pdf [1, 2,3,4]
“Constitutional Amendmentitis,” Kathleen Sullivan,
The American Prospect, December 19, 2001 http://
prospect.org/article/constitutional-amendmentitis
[1]
“Constitutional Amendments and the Constitutional Common Law,” Adrian Vermeule, http://www.law.
uchicago.edu/files/files/73-av-amendments.pdf [1]
Six Amendments and How and Why We Should
Change the Constitution, John Paul Stevens, Little,
Brown, New York, 2014 [1.e]
“When the Supreme Court is this wrong, it’s time to
overrule them,” Doris Kearns Goodwin & Jeff Clements, Reuters Blog Post June 2, 2015 http://blogs.
reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/02/when-thesupreme-court-is-this-wrong-its-time-to-overrulethem/ [1.d]
“The Missing Right To Vote: What we’d get from
amending the Constitution to guarantee it,” Heather
Gerken, Yale Law School News, http://www.law.yale.
edu/news/15643.htm [1.b]
Miracle at Philadelphia The Story of the Constitutional Convention May to September 1787, Catherine Drinker Bowen, Back Bay Books; September 30,
1986 [1, 2]
“Metrics of Constitutional Amendments: And Why
Proposed Environmental Quality Amendments
Don’t Measure Up,” J.B. Ruhl, 74 Notre Dame L.
Rev. 245 (1999), http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/
vol74/iss2/1 [1.e]
“The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress,” Thomas H. Neale, Congressional Research
Service Report R42589, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/
R42589.pdf [2]
31
The Voter November 2015
“The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives,” Thomas H. Neale, Congressional Research Service Report
R42592, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42592.pdf [2]
Program
Book review continued:
es. He also threw himself into an anti-dumping fight with the Chinese and he eventually
won. The legal battle may have cost as much as
$800,000 for each job saved, but to JBIII it was
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Conven- worth it. He says “Everybody thinks all the great
tion of the States; A Handbook for State Lawmakers, ideas come outta MIT, but … there’s a great deal
Robert G. Natelson for ALEC (American Legislative of innovation that comes off the factory floor. …
Exchange Council), http://www.alec.org/wp-con- If we close everything, that innovation’s gonna
tent/uploads/article-five-handbook-1.pdf [2,3]
move to wherever the factory is. We gotta invest
in America, instead of derivatives.”
“Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: Rule Governing the Process,”
Robert G. Natelson for ALEC (American Legislative
Exchange Council), Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 78,
p. 693, 2011, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1904649 [2,3]
“States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional
Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or
Other Issues,” Michael Leachman and David A. Super for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-16-14sfp.pdf [3]
“Balancing the Budget in a Conventional Way,” Milton S. Eisenhower, Wall Street Journal, January 17,
1985, http://www.metamind.us/cc/6/d1.pdf [3]
“The Ultimate Argument Against an Article V Constitutional Convention,” Larry Greenly, The John
Birch Society, http://www.jbs.org/legislation/the-ultimate-argument-against-an-article-v-[constitutional-convention [3]
Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women’s Rights, and the
Amending Process of the Constitution, Mary Frances
Berry, Indiana University Press, 1988 [4]
I learned that most of the money that comes
back from legal action against foreign dumping
goes to the manufacturers and their shareholders. John Bassett III used it to improve his factory, make better furniture and hire more workers.
Opinions in this review are personal and do not necessarily represent those of the League.
32
Program
Transportation continued:
Please join us with your concerns about the
coming school levies, and the “Best Start for
Kids” property tax that may be funding social
services in the county, along with the next and
the next special levy that appears on the political
horizon.
The following is included per USPS periodical
mailing regulations:
The Voter November 2015
33
The Voter November 2015
Units
Unit Meetings
(Unit times and locations subject to change; please verify with unit leader.)
Meetings are open to all.
Unit Leader email
Phone
Time
Monday, November 9
FIRST HILL – Adele Reynolds
[email protected]
206-621-4867 10:00 a.m.
Location
Horizon House, Forum & Social Room
900 University St., Seattle
SOUTH SEATTLE - Marian Wolfe and Vivian Montoya
[email protected]
206-763-9430 7:00 p.m.
Hostess: Susan Jones
[email protected]
206-695-2620
5804 52nd Ave S, Seattle
206-725-2902
Tuesday, November 10
BELLEVUE/KIRKLAND/REDMOND – Bonnie Rimawi
[email protected]
425-820-7127 12:00 p.m. Bellevue Library, Room 6
1111 110th Ave NE, Bellevue
Wednesday, November 11
NORTHEAST SEATTLE (formerly View Ridge) – Kay Beck
[email protected]
206-523-3127 12:45 p.m. Brig Bldg. (6344) in Magnuson Park
7400 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle
th
Directions: Go into the Park through North entrance at 74 and drive EAST toward water. At the STOP
sign, turn LEFT to park in front of the Brig, or RIGHT, for more parking. There will be a speaker.
QUEEN ANNE/MAGNOLIA/BALLARD EVENING - Kathy Pugh and Marlis Worthington
[email protected]
503-580-1240 7:30 p.m.
Magnolia United Church of Christ
[email protected]
206-283-7147
3555 W McGraw St, Seattle
Thursday, November 12
MERCER ISLAND – Cynthia Howe
[email protected]
206-236-0593 9:30 a.m.
UNIVERSITY HOUSE/WALLINGFORD
206-329-4848 10:00 a.m.
Emmanuel Episcopal Church
4400 86th Ave SE, Mercer Island
University House, Auditorium
4400 Stone Way N, Seattle
34
Units
The Voter November 2015
(Unit times and locations subject to change; please verify with unit leader.)
Unit Leader email
Phone
Time
Location
Thursday, November 12
SOUTHEAST KING COUNTY/ENUMCLAW - Cathy Dormaier
[email protected]
360-802-6799 11:30 a.m. Black Diamond Bakery & Restaurant
32805 Railroad Ave, Black Diamond
NORTH CENTRAL – Jan Orlando
[email protected]
206-524-0936 2:00 p.m.
Hostess: Gail Shurgot
6536 31st Ave NE, Seattle
206-522-8265
Monday, November 16
CAPITOL HILL/MONTLAKE –
206-329-4848 7:15 p.m.
Tuesday, November 17
WEST SEATTLE – Ethel Williams/Pat Lane
[email protected]
206-932-7887 1:00 p.m.
[email protected]
206-932-1578
Wednesday, November 18
NORTH KING COUNTY – Toni Potter
[email protected]
206-365-8949 9:15 a.m.
Hostess: Linnea Hirst
1602 E McGraw St., Seattle
206-322-3076
Daystar Retirement Village
2615 SW Barton, Seattle
Third Place Commons Mtg Room
17171 Bothell Way NE, Lake Forest Pk.
SOUTHWEST KING COUNTY – Mary Ehlers and Kathy Jorgensen
[email protected]
253-941-1930 7:00 p.m.
Foundation House
[email protected]
253-859-8349
32290 1st Ave S, Federal Way
Thursday, November 19
ISSAQUAH – Margaret Austin
[email protected] 425-392-5760 12:00 p.m.
Coho Room, Issaquah City Hall
130 East Sunset Way, Issaquah
Light lunch will be provided.
Saturday, November 21
BALLARD/MAGNOLIA/QUEEN ANNE DAY – Alice Peterson
[email protected] 206-524-5530 10:00 a.m. Hostess: Alice Peterson
5245 Pullman Ave NE, Seattle
35
The Voter November 2015
Board & Committee Contacts
Term
2015-17
2015-16
2015-17
2015-17
2014-16
2014-16
2015-17
2014-16
2014-16
2015-17
2014-16
2015-17
2014-15
2014-15
2015-17
2014-15
2015-16
2015-16
2015-16
Executive Committee
President
Amanda Clark
206-329-4848
[email protected]
1st VP
Ginna Owens
206-215-1408
[email protected]
2nd VP
Janet Winans
206-550-6483
[email protected]
Secretary
Dora Taylor
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Treasurer
Cindy Piennett
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Directors
Membership
Paneen Davidson
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Voter Editor
Katie Dudley
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Action
Pat Griffith
206-285-2452
[email protected]
Director
Julie Anne Kempf
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Outreach
Zara Kublin
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Voter Services
Amelia Woolley
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Note: All board members listed above are also members of the Education Fund Board
Education Fund Officers
President
Amanda Clark
206-329-4848
[email protected]
1st VP
Ginna Owens
206-329-4848
[email protected]
2nd VP
Janet Winans
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Secretary
Dora Taylor
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Treasurer
TBD
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Nominating Committee
Chair
Ellen Barton
206-329-4848
[email protected]
Carol Goldenberg
206-329-4848
[email protected]
[email protected]
Susan Jones
206-329-4848
Note: Two board members will be appointed to serve on the nominating committee.
Off Board Positions
Campaign Finance
CIS Coordinator
Jean Carlson
Cynthia Howe
Committees
Climate Change
Climate Change
Economics & Taxation
Economics & Taxation
Education
International Relations
Social Justice
Transportation
Waterfront
Judy Bevington
Raelene Gold
Nora Leech
Laura Weese
Joanna Cullen
Carol Goldenberg
Jayne Freitag
Janet Winans
Nancy & Charles Bagley
206-774-6649
206-236-0593
[email protected]
[email protected]
206-329-8514
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
425-223-5827
206-550-6483
206-282-1578
Periodicals Postage
Paid at Seattle, WA
The League of Women Voters of Seattle-King County
1620 18th Ave, Suite 101
Seattle WA 98122
Moving? Let us know!
Call the League office at (206) 329-4848 or
email [email protected]
LWV SEATTLE-KING COUNTY:
Amending the Constitution: Decisions and Difficulties
Thursday, November 5
6:30 p.m. - Doors open
7:00 p.m. - Forum begins
Seattle First Baptist Church
1111 Harvard Ave (at Seneca)
Seattle, WA
Accessible entrance on Harvard
Speakers:
Paul Lawrence, Pacifica Law Group
Alice Woldt, WAmend
Janet Winans, LWVS-KC
This forum is free and open to the public.
Contents printed on recycled and/or sustainably harvested paper.